Speaker 1: Mm hm. Welcome to another episode of Our Interesting Time.
Speaker 1: Is my pleasure to have Jay Dyer back on the show. Jay,
Speaker 1: how you.
Speaker 2: Doing doing great? How are you great?
Speaker 1: Thanks for coming back on the show. Now. Of course,
Speaker 1: you are the host of Jay's Analysis jays Analysis dot com.
Speaker 1: You're also the author of Esoteric Hollywood, Hollywood Sex Calls
Speaker 1: and Symbols and Film and Uh, well, what you cover
Speaker 1: in that book I think is relevant tonight. But when
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk about tonight, you've done a number
Speaker 1: of interviews and also some talks analyzing the career and
Speaker 1: works of Zebnubrazinski, who passed away uh last spring. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I want to discuss his role in promoting technocracy
Speaker 1: as well as technocracies subsequent implementation through you know, the government,
Speaker 1: government policies, government agencies, the corporations NGOs, and of course entertainment,
Speaker 1: you know, like Hollywood or even the Disney coortd operation.
Speaker 1: And maybe we'll discuss a little of the history of
Speaker 1: technocracy itself, of why he was developed in the nineteen thirties.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Zibya Brazinski, you've done a few talks on
Speaker 1: him his books, and let's talk about Brazinsky was what
Speaker 1: was he all about?
Speaker 2: Well, he was, of course, as I mentioned, a refugee,
Speaker 2: I guess you could say, not in the sense of
Speaker 2: refugees flooding Europe, but refugee fleeing Europe from the Soviet era.
Speaker 2: And his parents were reported at least to be of
Speaker 2: noble descent from Poland. And so Rashensky leaving Poland under
Speaker 2: Soviet actation and then going to Canada, I think is
Speaker 2: what kind of well most people agree that propelled his
Speaker 2: anti Russian fervor, so Brazenski almost I think a natural
Speaker 2: so Brezenski was, of of course fleeing Soviet occupation, and
Speaker 2: he therefore made a great recruit into the brain trust
Speaker 2: of the Anglo American establishment, and it was McGill University, which,
Speaker 2: interestingly I never heard anybody else make a connection to
Speaker 2: MK ultra. And I don't know that there's any direct
Speaker 2: work that Brazenski did in New Culture, but it's interesting
Speaker 2: that he was at one of those central schools for
Speaker 2: the MK ulture programs, McGill University, and it's there that
Speaker 2: he would I think be eyed by different people a
Speaker 2: potential recruit for CFR type work. And so when he
Speaker 2: wrote the between Two Ages, which is the book that
Speaker 2: kind of predicts a lot of where we'd go in
Speaker 2: the electronic age, the technocratic age that was in nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy it's really this that caught the eye of David Rockefeller.
Speaker 2: And that's what many books on Brazenski will discuss, is that,
Speaker 2: you know, that's why he was fingered for this role.
Speaker 2: And David reportedly called Henry Kissinger and said, I've got
Speaker 2: somebody for this new role that we need to start,
Speaker 2: or it is either Henry called David or David called Henry,
Speaker 2: one of the two, and they decided that's a big
Speaker 2: would be perfect for the first Chairman of the Trilateral
Speaker 2: Commission in nineteen seventy three. So it was there that
Speaker 2: he began, I think, to really do the deep state work.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sure prior to that. And he does
Speaker 2: actually cite Samuel Huntington and people like that. So Brezenski
Speaker 2: is in that school of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.
Speaker 2: That's people that he learned from, and of course adopted
Speaker 2: the Heartland theory and studied Halfred mckinder and all that.
Speaker 2: And I won't rehearse that. I'm sure your audience is
Speaker 2: familiar with it, but so he takes that approach certainly
Speaker 2: to geopolitics. But what's unique about Brezenski are three or
Speaker 2: four things and interesting. I had a pretty heated debate
Speaker 2: with Kevin Cole over this, but I think I'm pretty
Speaker 2: correct in stating that it's really Brazenski that pioneers the
Speaker 2: electronic and smart application of these technologies of regime change,
Speaker 2: and so that's what's I think the big Well, actually,
Speaker 2: you could argue there are quite a few things in
Speaker 2: between two ages that are future oriented and presage a
Speaker 2: lot of what we're seeing nowadays. So everybody talks about
Speaker 2: the weather weapons stuff that's in the footnotes in certain
Speaker 2: sections of the book.
Speaker 3: But he also saw all kinds of things.
Speaker 2: Like online education that people would be taking their classes online,
Speaker 2: that you could back basically re engineer society through the internet.
Speaker 2: So a lot of people will talk about technocracy and
Speaker 2: forget that the internet is what he's talking about when
Speaker 2: he's talking about technocracy. That's that's probably one of the
Speaker 2: biggest examples of technocracy that you could think of. So
Speaker 2: Brazenski four saw the important role that the internet would
Speaker 2: take in everyone's lives you know, all the way back
Speaker 2: in nineteen seventy.
Speaker 3: And as I said, that's why I think.
Speaker 2: David Rockefeller saw him as somebody who was very important
Speaker 2: and crucial for these deep state roles. And of course
Speaker 2: we know that he was the National Security Advisor under
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter, and it's in that role that he implemented
Speaker 2: these other kinds of technologies that I was talking about
Speaker 2: related to the newer models of regime change. So instead
Speaker 2: of those older CIA models of you know, assassinating Mosadic
Speaker 2: or something, or attempting to assassinate some leader having a
Speaker 2: coup against Mosad, excuse me. You know, that model was
Speaker 2: replaced eventually from the fifties into the.
Speaker 3: More soft power approach.
Speaker 2: Now, granted, soft power certainly goes back to the old
Speaker 2: imperial models of the ancient world. But what Brazenski was
Speaker 2: so useful at was integrating these models into the usage
Speaker 2: of technology. And that's what he I think you could
Speaker 2: safely say he's a pioneer of. And so back in
Speaker 2: the seventies he talked about the need for an arc
Speaker 2: of crisis that would stretch, if I recall from the Balkans,
Speaker 2: the Caucasus to Middle East, to Southeast Asia even Yeah,
Speaker 2: there's a great long article by Andrew Gavin Marshall at
Speaker 2: Global Research that does a really lengthy discussion of what
Speaker 2: appeared to be examples of Zensky's arc of crises, you know,
Speaker 2: all the way basically bombings, all the way back into
Speaker 2: the seventies, you know, all the way up to the
Speaker 2: Mumbai bombings, the Bali bombings and so forth, London bombings,
Speaker 2: and how a lot of this really fits with this
Speaker 2: model that we're talking about from Brazenski. And if one
Speaker 2: reads the excellent articles that Venesza Bili and Patrick Henningson
Speaker 2: have done on smart power soft power, and you understand
Speaker 2: Bresinski's works and you understand, you know, the examples of
Speaker 2: stuff like him co creating with Hamid Ghoul and Robert
Speaker 2: Gates the Musja Haden or Slash al Qaeda freedom fighters
Speaker 2: in nineteen seventy eight, seventy nine, then you understand basically
Speaker 2: the whole model of what you see in the world today.
Speaker 2: So Brezenski, I think is the key. And he's a little,
Speaker 2: you could argue even a little more relevant than Carol.
Speaker 2: He's a kind of Carol Quiggly, but without all the
Speaker 2: fun because he's crazy. He's Carol Quickly meets bertrand Russell
Speaker 2: with no nonsense, just straight to the point. Here's how
Speaker 2: we're going to get the technocracy, you know. And certainly
Speaker 2: towards the middle of Tragy and Hope, Quigly has a
Speaker 2: couple really fat chapters that deal with, you know, the
Speaker 2: implementation of technocracy and the AI computers and the military
Speaker 2: industrial complex and the managerial society that's coming. But Razensky,
Speaker 2: I think, is not just a you know, Quickly his
Speaker 2: history writer archivist. He's an implementer. And that's the big
Speaker 2: key here is that Brazenski is a point man for
Speaker 2: not just writing about this, but also implementing these new
Speaker 2: technologies that will utilize the latest in tech to achieve destabilization,
Speaker 2: archive crisis, regime change, et cetera, et cetera, to really
Speaker 2: destabilize all of the post World War two Soviet uh
Speaker 2: what it eventually functions to do is to destabilize the
Speaker 2: Soviet satellites. And so this once the Soviet Empire collapses,
Speaker 2: that was largely, as I said, a result of this
Speaker 2: arc of crisis technology model that Brazhensky had had really
Speaker 2: dreampt up and That's why he was so useful to
Speaker 2: the oligarchs. And so in many ways, as I said,
Speaker 2: for Praxis, he was He's more more relevant than even
Speaker 2: a quickly you could argue quickly will tell you more
Speaker 2: about the bankers and history, but Brazensky's going to tell
Speaker 2: you more about you know, how to understand what you
Speaker 2: see on CNN, you know, when you see the news
Speaker 2: talking about, you know, a coup here and a destabilization there.
Speaker 2: Once you really nail down Brazensky, you can understand what
Speaker 2: you're watching. So that, I think is what sums up Brazensky.
Speaker 2: And of course there's other peripheral addendum material that we
Speaker 2: can talk about with Grand Chess Board and how it
Speaker 2: kind of predicts nine to eleven in subtle ways, it
Speaker 2: predicts the Ukraine crisis, you know, back in nineteen ninety eight,
Speaker 2: seven ninety seven, when you wrote the book that we
Speaker 2: saw in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3: So that's what you're looking at.
Speaker 2: You're looking at a major geopolitical thinker, of the caliber
Speaker 2: of a player, you know, of the caliber of a kissinger,
Speaker 2: you know, who's really putting into practice the ideology. So
Speaker 2: he's not just a brains he's also you know, he
Speaker 2: also flies over there in the famous CBS clip you
Speaker 2: know that land that is yours, God is with you,
Speaker 2: you take it back, as he tells the freedom fighters
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: The uh he's uh, he's sort of quickly he's Carol.
Speaker 1: He's Carol Cooley without the Irish charm.
Speaker 2: That's a good way. But that's better.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But but with with the with all the bertrand Russell. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, bare bones, atheistic, pragmatic.
Speaker 1: Just there's no sentimentalism with him, you know.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Uh I discussed uh Braziski with uh with recently and
Speaker 1: uh with Joe uh at well hm and he just
Speaker 1: we just were talking about how it figures like Brazinski
Speaker 1: and uh Henry Kiss they're both foreign, right, and that
Speaker 1: these these distinct accents that they never seem to be
Speaker 1: able to shed despite years of living living in North America.
Speaker 1: And he seemed to think that there's accents himself or
Speaker 1: a function of their role in sort of intimidating and Americans,
Speaker 1: you know, with their PhDs and their uh you know,
Speaker 1: their positions in academia, that they're the ones with the education,
Speaker 1: the knowledge and the wisdom to sort of control plan
Speaker 1: the world, or at least play their part and planning
Speaker 1: the world. And I always thought it was fun both
Speaker 1: him and him and Kissinger, who were these two huge
Speaker 1: figures in the late twentieth century. And uh in I guess,
Speaker 1: uh strategizing for the Atlantis powers, both of them. You know,
Speaker 1: at these German Germanic accents, Prussian and almost Prussian and
Speaker 1: all age Polish becomes the air of the world where
Speaker 1: you know, there's real ethnically, ethnically is not much different,
Speaker 1: you know, European and how just example, once can how
Speaker 1: America has been conquered by Europeans.
Speaker 2: You know, that's an interesting point. I've never thought about that,
Speaker 2: kind of took it at face value, but yeah, they
Speaker 2: could have you know, they could have been menacing in
Speaker 2: their affectation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was like it was always that was overdone.
Speaker 1: It was like interesting, So I just that's interesting. Another
Speaker 1: thing is to what extent, I know he's a described
Speaker 1: as sort of a go for a lieutenant for the
Speaker 1: elite but in and playing such a large role in
Speaker 1: devising strategy for the Atlantist powers, for the elite powers
Speaker 1: that are really behind these nation states that are play
Speaker 1: things for the globalist. I mean, if you enjoy as
Speaker 1: much influence as a Kissinger or Brazinski, let's ask you this,
Speaker 1: to what extent can they manipulate things themselves because they
Speaker 1: they're whispering into the ear of the emperor. And of
Speaker 1: course historically we know that often those people, the gray eminence,
Speaker 1: the people whispering in the ears of those who are
Speaker 1: who make that, who make the decisions, might be able
Speaker 1: to manipulate things for their own agenda. An example, how
Speaker 1: well the Cold War might have been for the UH wage,
Speaker 1: for the UH, for the UH interest that that were
Speaker 1: behind the Atlantis powers the Anglo American Empire. At the
Speaker 1: same time, his Polish background probably played a big part
Speaker 1: in his Rusophobia and his I was he pushing his
Speaker 1: own agenda here too?
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I'm sure that does come into play,
Speaker 2: because as I understand, he was pretty successful in a
Speaker 2: monetary sense. Obviously, I don't know how wealthy Brezenski was,
Speaker 2: but you know, he's got a fairly prominent daughter who
Speaker 2: has the TV show with Joe Scarbo that Trump calls
Speaker 2: quite a ruckus with this week. If you saw that
Speaker 2: tweet talking about her face lift, that was But but yeah,
Speaker 2: I would imagine that that there is as as I mentioned,
Speaker 2: due to that, you know, fleeing Soviet occupation, as we're
Speaker 2: told that there was personal motivation and vengeance involved, perhaps, but.
Speaker 3: You know, he that all the all the better for
Speaker 3: the Atlantis.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, that really fits into the twentieth century strategy
Speaker 2: that we talked about from Quigley, which dealt with you know,
Speaker 2: the twenties, the two World Wars basically being about the
Speaker 2: weakening of Russia, uh and Germany so.
Speaker 1: And Poland was there to spark the Second World War
Speaker 1: exactly too, you know, yeah, to kind of lure Hitler
Speaker 1: into starting another general war in Europe, although it became
Speaker 1: a general war and when France and Britain declared war
Speaker 1: on on Hitler over his you know, invasion of Poland, which.
Speaker 2: Is grew out of the which is what they encouraged, Yeah,
Speaker 2: the Polish Corridor.
Speaker 1: They encouraged Polish and transience and then did nothing let
Speaker 1: Poland get crushed between Russia and Germany. So yeah, so
Speaker 1: again that's another example again then this utilizing that Russian
Speaker 1: that Polish nationalism that you know that that had been
Speaker 1: I guess crushed for almost two hundred years between you know,
Speaker 1: Germany and Russia. Then it became a reason for sparking
Speaker 1: the World War in the mid twentieth century, early twentieth century.
Speaker 2: So yeah, what I found so interesting about his writings
Speaker 2: was the a lot of stuff that you wouldn't expect
Speaker 2: in there. You wouldn't expect there to be no I mean,
Speaker 2: it's kind of been floating around conspiracy circles and sights
Speaker 2: for a long time. But I don't think that that
Speaker 2: most people would think about weather warfare and electromagnetic frequency
Speaker 2: warfare as something realistic. Yet it's in the nineteen seventy
Speaker 2: book by Brazinski, So he was talking about this stuff
Speaker 2: a long time ago in all kinds of other things
Speaker 2: to I mean, he he even kind of starts out
Speaker 2: talking about, as I mentioned in my talk, the the
Speaker 2: usefulness of cosmopolitan areas and how this really breaks down
Speaker 2: people's attachment to the land, to agriculture, that you there's
Speaker 2: a there's a big shift that happens in cultures when
Speaker 2: they go through the process of you know, industrialization and
Speaker 2: then modernization and so forth, and how that this impacts
Speaker 2: the social order, and you know, he sees that model
Speaker 2: as key to understanding basically what what we've seen in
Speaker 2: history happen to certain regions or nations right quote, First
Speaker 2: World nations that have gone through the process of moving
Speaker 2: from agricultural societies to industrial to modern slash technological societies.
Speaker 2: He sees those as microcosm models for the whole of
Speaker 2: the world. And this is why they're globalist. Globalist is
Speaker 2: how they think that the same model is going to
Speaker 2: happen in one of the cheap ways that you're going
Speaker 2: to do that. It was with the net. The net
Speaker 2: will make things global and that will move everyone into
Speaker 2: this high mind. And that's why he's a technocrat. That's
Speaker 2: the that's the central role here of all of this,
Speaker 2: and the Internet is the Internet is technocracy. And I
Speaker 2: mentioned that not to be luddite or to be overly
Speaker 2: negative or fear porn oriented, but I mean, we just
Speaker 2: have to understand that that's that's a fact, and that's
Speaker 2: what Brezenski is talking about.
Speaker 3: You know, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Because as you get removed from from the soil,
Speaker 1: further remove off from nature, you get further removed from
Speaker 1: the laws that bind nature, and you forget that there's
Speaker 1: laws still bind you, and you're well, that's how you
Speaker 1: get to you know, transgenderism in these things, right because uh,
Speaker 1: you probably saw the movie Her With Yet and how
Speaker 1: you know, you notice the cold, the surroundings, the urban surroundings,
Speaker 1: the apartment, and think's cold exactly.
Speaker 3: You know, Yeah, that's a great point.
Speaker 2: The aesthetic of the film really betrays the emptiness. And
Speaker 2: that's that's really the point of that films. That's you know,
Speaker 2: he's surrounded by human beings who you know, the kind
Speaker 2: of one to one connection and love that he's looking for,
Speaker 2: you know, is ironically the Amy Adams character that the
Speaker 2: girl is sitting there next to the whole time and
Speaker 2: he's fixated on this stupid computer program. But but yeah,
Speaker 2: that's that's a great example of you know, what Brazienski's
Speaker 2: predicting here and what he would like to see implemented.
Speaker 2: And when you there's a lot of other interesting interviews
Speaker 2: that I came across to John Adams dug at one
Speaker 2: from I think the nineties from the New York Times
Speaker 2: or something like that. But in that interview, he it's
Speaker 2: a linked with Brazienski. He goes into thinks like consumerism
Speaker 2: and americanism, and that's also very revealing because there, he's
Speaker 2: it's more modern. You know, it's twenty five years after
Speaker 2: between two eight, and he's saying, look, we're at the
Speaker 2: point now where America is basically the battering ram to
Speaker 2: break down all ideologies across the globe.
Speaker 3: And that's something I've been arguing for a long time.
Speaker 2: And a lot of people take issue with that, and
Speaker 2: they have a very you know, they feel that I'm
Speaker 2: being unpatriotic or being mean or something like that, when
Speaker 2: all I'm telling you is that that Americanism can be
Speaker 2: used as a tool to destroy other countries and other traditions,
Speaker 2: not for something better, but for the purpose of the globalists.
Speaker 2: And Brazinski says that.
Speaker 3: He explicitly says that in that interview.
Speaker 2: He says, now, obviously he doesn't give a shit about America,
Speaker 2: he has no concern about but he basically says it's
Speaker 2: a costume that can be worn to spread hope in
Speaker 2: the sense of quote American democracy, which he moraliss says
Speaker 2: is just oligarchical rule. He knows that there's no such
Speaker 2: thing as actual democracy, and so, you know, he explodes
Speaker 2: the mythology that it's it's it's not true, it's American
Speaker 2: patriotism is basically dead.
Speaker 3: It's been dead for a long time.
Speaker 2: And so to be you know, mindlessly pro American if
Speaker 2: so many people are and you know, supports the troops
Speaker 2: and all this kind of stuff, it's really just serving
Speaker 2: the oligarchical agenda. And Prazenski is a prime oligarch to
Speaker 2: show that, you know, he has no qualms about just
Speaker 2: saying flat out it's kind of like, I don't remember
Speaker 2: if it was you or or somebody was doing a
Speaker 2: show an interview and they were talking about I think
Speaker 2: it was Alan Watt was doing a discussion about Prince
Speaker 2: Philip and that they don't really like to give him
Speaker 2: interviews often because he just oftentimes he'll just stay straight
Speaker 2: out what they want to do, like, but of course
Speaker 2: I want to see full billion people dead, don't you
Speaker 2: don't you want to see it wasn't dead, the Hillman's cancer.
Speaker 2: So they don't give him that interview because you know,
Speaker 2: he's a little too blunt. In many ways, Marzenski is
Speaker 2: pretty blunt too. He just flat out says that consumerism
Speaker 2: and Americanism are the means by which you can destroy religion,
Speaker 2: and that's really kind of a thesis of between two
Speaker 2: ages is that the three things that are there are
Speaker 2: ideology is dead, religion is dead, Nation states dead, and
Speaker 2: Marxism now is dead. So all of those are you know,
Speaker 2: kind of come and gone. There goes to the past,
Speaker 2: and we can move into the technocratic age. So hence
Speaker 2: between two ages, that's the new transition period that we're
Speaker 2: going into, is what he's talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you talk about the Chris the exportation of Americanism
Speaker 1: and consumerism, materialism abroad. But one thing it does not
Speaker 1: result in the material abundance the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: That's just the uh it really it relies on impoverishing
Speaker 1: the world through the uh you know, the economic Hitman model,
Speaker 1: the oh the World Bank, uh you know, the International
Speaker 1: Monetary Fund, these things. I think all these things that
Speaker 1: the bridisci said were great in bringing about this globalization.
Speaker 1: But before that was uh successfully done, it was of
Speaker 1: course it had to be applied domestically here in the
Speaker 1: United States, and here in that States you had, through wars,
Speaker 1: the economic crises and then prosperity, the destruction of any
Speaker 1: ethnic consciousness or identity here among the particularly among the
Speaker 1: white the white majority. In fact, you know, the bland
Speaker 1: white majority is sort of a just sort of a
Speaker 1: denature derastinated, uh, conglomeration of the former ethnic groups. You know,
Speaker 1: we see little bits of it, little Italy here, there's
Speaker 1: Saint Patrick's Day, Sat Past Jay Parade, even that's been corrupted.
Speaker 1: But the breakup, ironically, of of these urban neighborhoods into
Speaker 1: suburbia through various social engineering schemes, whether it's the construction
Speaker 1: of the Interstate highway system or the creation of the
Speaker 1: you know, of the thirty year mortgage courtesy the federal government,
Speaker 1: these things. And this, of course, this coincides with the
Speaker 1: postwar boom, the Second World War, and this explosion and
Speaker 1: consumption and this this is where you see the sort
Speaker 1: of this breakdown of any the ethnic or religious identity
Speaker 1: among various ethnic groups. They became white Americans, but the
Speaker 1: only thing they could really identify with each other would
Speaker 1: be their consumption habits, whether it's the music Elvis Presley
Speaker 1: or the Beatles, or you know, the hula hoop jeans,
Speaker 1: you know, the T shirt, these things. And so once again,
Speaker 1: once they lose any ethnic identity, uh, they can easily
Speaker 1: be manipulated through consumerism, which is what he's talking about here.
Speaker 1: And this becomes the good life. Of course. Uh that's
Speaker 1: promoted through uh uh mass communication, through time life, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, through the Disney corporation. Sports is a big
Speaker 1: thing because sports is now sort of a substitute for
Speaker 1: maybe uh tribal or regional uh patriotisms that might have existed,
Speaker 1: you know, uh so now but that's but that's all
Speaker 1: part of the corporate monstrosity because through sports you can
Speaker 1: promote all types of social you know, agendas or engineering
Speaker 1: schemes we're seeing with the NFL and the NBA, or transgenderism,
Speaker 1: you know these things. So here in the again, I'm
Speaker 1: saying it had to had to be done here first,
Speaker 1: we had to be first to be conquered here in
Speaker 1: the United States, for for is exported.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Brazenski was very, i think conscious of that
Speaker 2: because he wore the cloak of liberal many many years,
Speaker 2: you know, being in the cart administration and being in
Speaker 2: the Obama administration. But he also served on various Bush
Speaker 2: task forces. So there's another character that you know, transcends
Speaker 2: the phony left right dialectic. You can see it pretty clearly.
Speaker 2: But Brezenski definitely understood with his liberal egalitarian face that
Speaker 2: he wore. You would get the impression that he believed
Speaker 2: in equalitarianism and so forth, and he would often speak
Speaker 2: you know, of Martin Luther King or these platitudes. But
Speaker 2: at the same time you have the cold calculated technocrat
Speaker 2: who was very explicit about depopulation, very explicit about carbon
Speaker 2: taxes and Agena twenty one. So Brazenski was obviously on
Speaker 2: board with all that. So we we know from that
Speaker 2: that his supposed humanitarian a model or a cloak that
Speaker 2: he wore was a was Bologney that was part of
Speaker 2: the guys that you wear, you know, to be part
Speaker 2: of the Democrat establishment, and the same goes for the
Speaker 2: Republican establishment as well. So I mean he's he's picked
Speaker 2: out by the Rockefellers, right, these are the GP, right,
Speaker 2: the GOP. You're picking out the so called Democrats to
Speaker 2: run these big steering committees, and hence Brazenski's membership, you know,
Speaker 2: in Builderberg and various Bilderberg steering committees, and you know,
Speaker 2: being even chosen for slicing up Serbia with Wesley Clark
Speaker 2: and Kissinger on the International Crisis Group, which I've talked
Speaker 2: about many times.
Speaker 3: So Brazenski is not at all.
Speaker 2: A patriot to any group. And so you know, he's
Speaker 2: definitely at that level of people who believe that they
Speaker 2: don't have any ethnic ties, they don't have any anything
Speaker 2: that binds them to any communities. And in fact, Brezenski, even
Speaker 2: in between two ages, early on discusses the possibility of
Speaker 2: different organizations that could be used for mobilizing globalism, and
Speaker 2: he discusses the Catholic Church because it's one of the
Speaker 2: few global organizations. So Brazinski, again, you know, sees these
Speaker 2: entities not as something real or as bearers of tradition,
Speaker 2: but just as tools to be moved on the grand
Speaker 2: chessboard chess pieces. So the Roman Catholic Church is to Braziski,
Speaker 2: you know, one the queen piece maybe, and then you
Speaker 2: have you know, al Qaeda is upon piece. You know,
Speaker 2: it's like the NGOs or rook piece. That's how he
Speaker 2: views all of this, and race and culture, all of
Speaker 2: that is just another chess piece, another tool for manipulation
Speaker 2: that has nothing to do with any sort of metaphysical
Speaker 2: verities or universal truths. It's just simply about cold heart pragmatism.
Speaker 2: And that's the essence of technocracy. That it's pragmatic.
Speaker 1: And one thing that's important to point out is when
Speaker 1: you talk about members of the International Crisis Group, that
Speaker 1: these elder statesmen aren't interested in solving problems in stabilizing
Speaker 1: the world. They believe in stabilizing the world to destabilizing
Speaker 1: the world, sort of like burning the village in order
Speaker 1: to save it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, he says, he says, if America didn't
Speaker 2: do what it did, we would have anarchy. Well, so
Speaker 2: in other words, America has to cause anarchy or else
Speaker 2: we'll fall into anarchy. But of course he's saying, you
Speaker 2: know that the American world order, the packs Americana, he says,
Speaker 2: basically keeps the whole globe in check and.
Speaker 3: Chaos and so forth so on.
Speaker 2: But but there's also, you know, other interesting aspects to
Speaker 2: Brazenski that you might not respect, like his support for
Speaker 2: the John Meersheimer book about Apak. He I think both.
Speaker 3: Kind of like.
Speaker 2: Soros.
Speaker 3: Was kind of like Soros.
Speaker 2: He would you know, at times, draw the ire of
Speaker 2: certain factions like the Israelis because you know, Brazenski doesn't
Speaker 2: care for nationalism. Uh, you know, he thinks that's dead
Speaker 2: and gone, so in his mind, as a technocrat. You
Speaker 2: know that that I don't think he has any special
Speaker 2: care or concern for the Israeli state. So I think
Speaker 2: you could argue that maybe he represents that kind of
Speaker 2: U n type faction. You know, Brezenski would be much
Speaker 2: more favorable towards a United Nations type of model for
Speaker 2: global government than he would necessarily the warhawk Bush neocon approach.
Speaker 2: So he's maybe not necessarily one hundred percent you know,
Speaker 2: on board with the neo cons although Golden Fitzgerald argued
Speaker 2: that he actually is just a straight up neocon, So
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't know they you know, they have
Speaker 2: a lot more time put into this than I have.
Speaker 2: But but regardless, you know, there can be I guess
Speaker 2: at times, as we've said, disagreements about different approaches, but
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter because the end goal is still the same.
Speaker 2: I just I think Brazenski views America and Americanism as.
Speaker 3: A cloak that can be shed once.
Speaker 2: Once the world is ripe for a total technocratic globalism.
Speaker 2: And in fact, when Brazienski critique Bush, that was his
Speaker 2: main critique was that after nine to eleven, he didn't
Speaker 2: sufficiently use it for globalism. He used it for too
Speaker 2: much Americanism, too much patriotism. Yeah, not real but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but then that's his criticism with it. This inspired opposition, Yes,
Speaker 1: created opposition with China and Russia, and it was their
Speaker 1: crude methods by going about this, which uh, messed up
Speaker 1: the plan so to speak. M yeah, right, as opposed
Speaker 1: to soft power, which is you don't talk about going
Speaker 1: in and conquering, invading, You talk about human rights and
Speaker 1: you know, responsibly, responsibilities to protect and things like that,
Speaker 1: as opposed to going in invading a country and imposing
Speaker 1: a government with you know, with hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: uish troops these things. Uh.
Speaker 2: But now, and that was that that's his model. I mean,
Speaker 2: he wants to use his model. You know, he's the
Speaker 2: father of that. In terms of implementing the technology, I
Speaker 2: realized that again, Empires have used soft power the time,
Speaker 2: but Razinski is the real mover and shaker in terms
Speaker 2: of utising technology and what would eventually be the you know,
Speaker 2: the hashtag type stuff. Yeah. Yeah, all of that being
Speaker 2: all of it being collated together. I think you can
Speaker 2: really point to Brazenski as a father. Now, there was
Speaker 2: other figures right after Brazenski Joseph what's his name? That
Speaker 2: that's the sort of the Harvard father of the of
Speaker 2: this approach to regime change. There's another guy who's kind
Speaker 2: of also credited with being the coining the term soft power,
Speaker 2: Joseph I forget his name, but he's one of these
Speaker 2: Harvard international business type guys.
Speaker 3: But it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's really he's just coining a term that
Speaker 2: was already the model for doing this in between two ages,
Speaker 2: that lays out the strategy of using all the technologies.
Speaker 1: And you've mentioned, of course Gene Sharp, this oh yeah,
Speaker 1: harmless academic up there in Boston.
Speaker 2: Non violent regime change.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I guess this is the invoking democracy and
Speaker 1: human rights to go in and disrupt foreign governments, foreign
Speaker 1: cultures and sort of incorporated it into the atlantisis fold.
Speaker 2: I guess. Yeah. I wish I could remember that. It's
Speaker 2: I think it's even cold. You know, it's the Harvard model,
Speaker 2: the Harvard of Joseph somebody was one of the professors
Speaker 2: at Harvard a thing. But but yeah, I mean that
Speaker 2: they had this down to a science, and that's why
Speaker 2: they don't really like that, you know, that approach of
Speaker 2: you know it was Raytheon and Boeing, and then the
Speaker 2: guys who necessarily who might want to just sell tanks
Speaker 2: and weapons, you know, they would rather you know, use
Speaker 2: their NGOs than the latest anti molistic missiles or something
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 1: Because uh, but that an evasion like that expends a
Speaker 1: lot of weaponry they had to replace. So there's always
Speaker 1: pressure to go go in, go in, you know, with
Speaker 1: the guns of blazing, because that destroys a lot of
Speaker 1: things you have to be rebuilt and replace.
Speaker 3: And it was Brazensky.
Speaker 2: I don't know if Brazenski personally profited off of it,
Speaker 2: but I wouldn't be surprised, but it was. It was
Speaker 2: Wesley Clark and you've mentioned that, but it was Wesley
Speaker 2: Clark and others who had interest in the mineral are
Speaker 2: of the of Serbia and certain minds there, and that
Speaker 2: was a big part of the proclamations of oh, you know,
Speaker 2: slovanam Melosavich is this evil dictator and you know, we
Speaker 2: got to get rid of him, and uh, oh, what
Speaker 2: do you know, There's all this these environmental problems that
Speaker 2: we got to solve. But all of that was just
Speaker 2: a cloak for basically these people divvying up that country.
Speaker 2: And I think some people have pointed to Madeline Albright
Speaker 2: getting a chunk of that too or something.
Speaker 1: She has a big piece. I think its telecommunication with
Speaker 1: the Melton all right, right, and Wesley Clark, it's the
Speaker 1: mineral rights or something.
Speaker 2: And of course the involved in that strategy m and.
Speaker 1: You have of course can't bond. Steel was a huge
Speaker 1: military operation there which you know, huge contracts. Not to mention,
Speaker 1: I would have to there's some that's a NATO operation,
Speaker 1: I think, which means that. And of course there's a
Speaker 1: huge human traffic and drug trafficking stream going into going
Speaker 1: into a into Brussels, and wherever you find a military
Speaker 1: intelligence operations you're gonna find, you know, human traffic and
Speaker 1: explosion of drug trafficking. This also was their chance to
Speaker 1: I believe, in the nineties to then send in former
Speaker 1: Muja Hyden veterans of the Afghan War into the into
Speaker 1: the Caucasus region Checha. You also there's a chech In
Speaker 1: civil war that they could stoke.
Speaker 2: And there was a kind of hybrid coast of a
Speaker 2: liberation army. And this was a hybridization of uh Communism,
Speaker 2: Communist Marxism and Uh, jihadist philosophy m h. And Daniel
Speaker 2: has a great chapter on that and others. Two Ingell's
Speaker 2: written on a lot of people pointed.
Speaker 1: Out, so you cut out those, Danny Krebko, I think
Speaker 1: you said.
Speaker 2: Daniel Eslin doesn't called hybrid warst talks about it, And yeah,
Speaker 2: everybody knows this was a total CIA sight now pretty obvious.
Speaker 2: And now that doesn't necessarily mean Sloban and Melosavich was
Speaker 2: a saint, but it's interesting that, uh, you know, he
Speaker 2: did marshal a lot of support from Serbian Orthodox people. Uh,
Speaker 2: And so I wonder if there couldn't have also been
Speaker 2: religious motivations involved there as well. But again I don't
Speaker 2: I'm not an expert on Serbia.
Speaker 1: But anyway, well, I mean the Congress voted, I mean,
Speaker 1: the US government, through the US Congress, systematically took Yugoslavia
Speaker 1: apart because it made foreign aid depend upon the consistent
Speaker 1: republics voting to leave. But you know, the authority of Belgrade,
Speaker 1: and so they were literally bribing the other republics to leave,
Speaker 1: to break apart.
Speaker 2: Yugoslavia because of Soviet influence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was just a nineteen ninety one, ninety three
Speaker 1: twenty four. So they were provoking this Bulkan war by
Speaker 1: promoting secession. And you know, in this case, the federal
Speaker 1: government supports secession. I guess you could say.
Speaker 2: Oh right, yeah, and also you know funding al Qaeda
Speaker 2: in that region as well.
Speaker 1: Yes, and this again, this, yeah, this.
Speaker 2: Is where Putin, I guess fought his first battles were
Speaker 2: told the chest name conflict.
Speaker 1: And that's what I guess I'd roughly follow along the
Speaker 1: fault line that Braziski sought to trade with the Arch crisis.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, So you know, again we're at a
Speaker 2: major player. And I think Patrick made the argument that
Speaker 2: Brazenski's probably the most most important figure in terms of
Speaker 2: geopolitics for the last fifty years. That's probably true.
Speaker 1: What's amazing to me is all the experts are the
Speaker 1: least the acknowledged experts in politics always advocates of constant destabilization,
Speaker 1: war and misery because it goes back to the whole
Speaker 1: I guess, the whole study of it goes back to geopods,
Speaker 1: goes back to mckinder, which which nevill which inherently involves
Speaker 1: all that.
Speaker 2: And it's not like, you know what this is similar
Speaker 2: to that you and I have talked about many times
Speaker 2: is the mafia. And the reason I say that is
Speaker 2: because if you go to Hot Springs, which I've taken
Speaker 2: two trips there, it's really neat. I mean, it's kind
Speaker 2: of kitschy and cheesy and run down. But this was
Speaker 2: kind of like Vegas before Vegas was Vegas, right around
Speaker 2: the time that Hot Springs was hopping as a mob region,
Speaker 2: and it was kind of a safe place where the
Speaker 2: dons could meet and they would go to the baths
Speaker 2: and stuff like that. But what's interesting is that there's
Speaker 2: all these neat facts about the mob and the connections
Speaker 2: that most people don't know about. So al Capone actually
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time in Hot Springs. I know
Speaker 2: this because I did a tour which there's a mob
Speaker 2: museum here and they'll take you on this tour. There
Speaker 2: are underground tunnels that were built underneath the Hot Springs
Speaker 2: for various vices to be run, and so there's just
Speaker 2: a little neat side story. Whenever the FBI or one
Speaker 2: of the FEDS or somebody was going to come bust
Speaker 2: because of course all the local police were all bought off,
Speaker 2: so anytime a FED or somebody like that would come
Speaker 2: in maybe try to bust somebody. The local telegraph or
Speaker 2: telephone operator worked for the mobsters, and she would do
Speaker 2: a signal and the whichever place is going to get busted,
Speaker 2: all the guys would run down under Most of the businesses,
Speaker 2: by the way, on the strip have secret passageways, and
Speaker 2: they would run down underneath and they would run, you know,
Speaker 2: down the block to some other building through this, because
Speaker 2: there's a giant underground tunnel underneath the whole city. So
Speaker 2: this was how they were running vices and all imaginal
Speaker 2: anything you could imagine when trying to say and they
Speaker 2: al Capone teamed up with none other than JFK. Senior
Speaker 2: to run the to run liquor during prohibition, and the
Speaker 2: way they did it this is really neat. Actually, there's
Speaker 2: everybody knows about Arkansas as because of the water. There's
Speaker 2: all these you know, giant water aqueducts underneath the ground.
Speaker 2: That's why the water is so good. And of course
Speaker 2: the you know Clinton's and Rockefellers, they all have a
Speaker 2: monopoly on all this stuff. Well, the water companies around
Speaker 2: here are the famous ones that would all their bottle
Speaker 2: of water. They were actually running moonshine through dressed up
Speaker 2: as bottle of water.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there was all these but I had no
Speaker 2: idea that that was actually who was running that was
Speaker 2: Al Capone and Joseph Kennedy Senior, i'd say, was running
Speaker 2: that out of Hot Springs. So there are all these
Speaker 2: neat facts if you if you take a mob tour here,
Speaker 2: and then of course other mob characters, like there was
Speaker 2: a Madden who was a mobster from England who was
Speaker 2: running a lot of East Coast syndicate stuff. And actually
Speaker 2: the New York mobsters would come and get advice from
Speaker 2: this guy. But he just lived in this little normal
Speaker 2: house out here in the middle of nowhere in Arkansas,
Speaker 2: and he was running this giant criminal syndicate, you know,
Speaker 2: hundreds of millions of dollars, and nobody knew this guy
Speaker 2: was just some British guy who you know, was very unassuming,
Speaker 2: living out of the country and playing golf all day.
Speaker 2: So it's literally like something out of the movies.
Speaker 3: And the reason I say all that is that when.
Speaker 2: You kind of look at the picture of how things
Speaker 2: worked on the small scale, and when you look at
Speaker 2: how operations will be run save by the FBI to
Speaker 2: try to bust these people. And how clever the mobsters
Speaker 2: were in getting around stuff is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: Then you can kind of project big picture. Well the
Speaker 2: Brazenskis these are like just the big mobsters, is what
Speaker 2: I'm trying to say. Yeah, they're the guys who do
Speaker 2: it to countries.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's they suborn, you know, as the same of
Speaker 1: these monsters would suborn or bribe local officials to control
Speaker 1: you know, the levels of power, uh, indirectly, so they
Speaker 1: could you know, skate away from the law when necessary.
Speaker 1: The bigger gangster your you know, you apply that nationally,
Speaker 1: like a mayor Lanski to the federal government who had
Speaker 1: control of well, a capone can never control Jago Hoover.
Speaker 1: Mari Lancy can control Jay Hoover because he had photos
Speaker 1: of them. And this same thing applies internationally. Joe Kennedy
Speaker 1: would parlay his wealth that he mass to you know,
Speaker 1: smuggling into eventually going to gambling you know you have
Speaker 1: the game on the casino out there too in Las
Speaker 1: Vegas eventually, but also to buy his way in the
Speaker 1: political power.
Speaker 2: Yes. And now here's another interesting little tidbit. The do
Speaker 2: you know who shut down all the gambling in Hot Springs?
Speaker 1: Is it Robert Kennedy?
Speaker 2: It was the Rockefellers.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. Yeah, what time frame was that.
Speaker 2: This was in the sixties and seventies.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that was that Winthrop Rockefeller. Yes, Okay, that's interesting.
Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah, so he campaigned on this anti vice platform
Speaker 2: to get rid of the gambling. Now when he uh
Speaker 2: got rid of it in the seventies, he sent all
Speaker 2: these these FEDS in and these FBI people. That's when
Speaker 2: Las Vegas really blost in the seventies to be kind
Speaker 2: of the new I mean, I understand there was people
Speaker 2: going to Las Vegas before the seventies, but there was
Speaker 2: a big heyday for Las Vegas in the seventies.
Speaker 3: And I have a big doubt that.
Speaker 2: The Rockefellers are actually interested in stopping vices because when
Speaker 2: you figure out the history of the Rockefellers, they are
Speaker 2: Arkansas people, and they are connected to Walmart, which is
Speaker 2: also headquartered in Arkansas.
Speaker 1: And yeah, now explain Walmart's meteoric rise.
Speaker 2: And that's how Sam Walton got his Chinese deals. It's
Speaker 2: from the Rockville.
Speaker 1: So we're going back to the Trilatles Commission again.
Speaker 2: Exactly, Now, how does this tider Brezenski who spot at
Speaker 2: Brazenski and you know recruited him Dad Rockviller.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I like you kid, you got spunk.
Speaker 2: But now most people wouldn't connect all that mafia type stuff.
Speaker 2: But actually it you know when you when you look
Speaker 2: at you know, when the Rockefeller come into power and
Speaker 2: and and and they knew what they were doing then
Speaker 2: because if you go back to standard oil and that,
Speaker 2: I mean, these are serious business people. They know that
Speaker 2: this is Bible belt. They're going to campaign on that
Speaker 2: anti vice Bible belt ticket, right, and that's going to
Speaker 2: dupe everybody. But they don't care anything about don't.
Speaker 1: Get interests and Baptist the yes. And of course that's
Speaker 1: interesting because you go back to the only part of
Speaker 1: the twentieth century, Uh is John de Rockefeller, Uh you know,
Speaker 1: the senior the first is a big promoter of the
Speaker 1: temperance movement.
Speaker 2: And then exactly and that's stuff. Yeah yeah, so that's
Speaker 2: what they were saying was and now now that he
Speaker 2: may have actually had a you know, a temperance type view,
Speaker 2: I think they were they were said to be teetotalers.
Speaker 2: I don't think they really drank.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but had they had to do with gasoline. I
Speaker 1: think at the time they didn't want to compete.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's going to say, is that there's almost always
Speaker 2: alter about it is it's not because it's about business,
Speaker 2: is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so that was that That's what really gave
Speaker 1: it it's real push at least the point, you know,
Speaker 1: it became this sort of this uh spasma of insanity
Speaker 1: where they you know, they passed prohibition in nineteen twenty
Speaker 1: because that is an outgrowth of the lever Act of
Speaker 1: World War One, where government assumes control of all food,
Speaker 1: you know, to because it has to control food unless
Speaker 1: the Kaiser comes over and rapes all our women. Uh.
Speaker 1: So that's a sort of a ratchet effect where again you
Speaker 1: get a war crisis which you know, thought government police
Speaker 1: sheds the constitution, you know, forget that we had a
Speaker 1: warter fight, and that gives all these interests to the
Speaker 1: excuse to go in and pass these laws which benefit
Speaker 1: the corporations.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, O example. So, uh, you know, anytime you
Speaker 2: talk to anytime you see interviews with mobsters, anytime you
Speaker 2: talk to people who claim to you know, no mobster
Speaker 2: or something like that. They always make the statement that
Speaker 2: the government's the real mafia.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like the white the Vulgier right.
Speaker 2: Exactly when I was when I did the mob tour
Speaker 2: at the Hot Springs, that was one of the first
Speaker 2: things that they said was you ever the real gangsters are.
Speaker 2: Everybody's like, well, they tell me the government. They're like
Speaker 2: why they said, well, because anytime anybody came these they
Speaker 2: said they only shootouts that ever happened in Hot Springs.
Speaker 2: It was between the FEDS and the and the gangsters.
Speaker 2: It was never gangster to gangster.
Speaker 1: Yes, it was interesting to listen to Katha Austin Fits
Speaker 1: talk about this sort of planning ahead. You mentioned Walmart
Speaker 1: and how you know the rise of Sam Walton and
Speaker 1: what this coincides with the nineteen seventies and Triladel's Commission
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy three. Brazinski is the first head of it,
Speaker 1: and it's opening to China. Of course, the shears before
Speaker 1: with Nixon and Kissinger, you know that secret visit he
Speaker 1: makes in the early seventies. Nixon opens up to China
Speaker 1: and coincides with the Rockefellows in the Trilado Commission. They're
Speaker 1: thinking decades ahead. I mean, it's but she was talking
Speaker 1: about how in the nineteen nineties airports are going through
Speaker 1: these upgrades and renovations, that they're turning airports into shopping malls.
Speaker 1: And as a businesswoman, she was looking at us saying,
Speaker 1: how is this going to work? Because people don't go
Speaker 1: to airports to shop. They go to airports to go
Speaker 1: and to go to some far off place. You take
Speaker 1: a flight, go somewhere to either a ride or to leave.
Speaker 1: They're not there a long time. Eleven happens all the
Speaker 1: security theater, theater, you're stuck at the airport for three
Speaker 1: two three hours, you're going to shop. It's like they
Speaker 1: knew it was going to happen.
Speaker 2: Oh interesting, and yeah, you even though Brazenski is not
Speaker 2: a Pnack character that you do have in Grand Chess
Speaker 2: Board hints and subtle references to you know, a new
Speaker 2: pearl Harbor.
Speaker 3: That kind of that kind of talk.
Speaker 2: So many people have even said that, you know, even
Speaker 2: Grand Chess Board might suggest, you know, a coming nine
Speaker 2: to eleven, and certainly Brazenski would have known about it,
Speaker 2: you know, if if this was a planned, a false
Speaker 2: flag type thing, on which I think it was obviously,
Speaker 2: so I feel like you probably.
Speaker 3: Didn't know about it. And and then and.
Speaker 2: Again it's not just nine to eleven. You also have
Speaker 2: him laying out the plans for the Ukraine here all
Speaker 2: the way in the nineties. And then that's of course
Speaker 2: we as we learned that when Soros in Victoria New
Speaker 2: One were first putting the billions into the Orange Revolution
Speaker 2: in the Ukraine was starting back in the nineties, and
Speaker 2: so presumably you know, Soros or excuse me, presumably Brazenski
Speaker 2: would have been involved in that too, because I mean,
Speaker 2: he's laying the very thing out in Grand Chess border
Speaker 2: what needs to happen in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Which is funny because that talking about the Ukraine and
Speaker 1: the role that Hitler played for the atlantisis so he
Speaker 1: was sort of learned into war and also to force
Speaker 1: to invade Russia and sort of invade Russian. Russia absorbed
Speaker 1: the punch, you know, and so they could defeat German
Speaker 1: you nil, so we can Russia. At the same time. Well,
Speaker 1: here we have the United States government in the in
Speaker 1: the twenty first century promoting Ukrainian nationalism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just like Hitler did.
Speaker 1: It's like the Germans and Hitler did, and then the
Speaker 1: World War One end the second because they promoted Ukrainian
Speaker 1: nationalist and Hitler did that. At the same time, you know,
Speaker 1: the s S battalions, the Ukraine s S Batans, and
Speaker 1: here's the US government supporting these, uh you know, these
Speaker 1: stepan banderas, you know, worshiping the Nazis. Because this is
Speaker 1: no example of going into an area and screwing up
Speaker 1: with the local politics and the culture and just creating
Speaker 1: a a a an arena of constant battle. Because you know,
Speaker 1: if you get into the ethnic politics of of the
Speaker 1: Ukraine in nineteen thirties, you realized that yes, many Ukrainians
Speaker 1: have have legitimate grudges against you know what they perceived
Speaker 1: to be Russians but really were Soviets. You know, So
Speaker 1: what you do, will you join up with the s
Speaker 1: S and they when the US, when the Germans, because
Speaker 1: that it's your chance to get it, get it, get
Speaker 1: it at the at the Soviets, the Russians.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a great article by Leonards having on the
Speaker 2: history of Ukraine and Russia and it being properly part
Speaker 2: of the Russian sphere of influencer. You know, he talks
Speaker 2: about the history of the language, which is very interesting
Speaker 2: and when you read even quickly, he talks about how
Speaker 2: Hitler knew that that was crucial to Russia. That region,
Speaker 2: the Ukraine region cramea region that is a there's a
Speaker 2: lot of wealth, a lot of resources there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of black rich soil that is exactly
Speaker 1: controlled yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so that's why it's it was very important
Speaker 2: to split that off from the Russian sphere of influence.
Speaker 3: So it has nothing to do with.
Speaker 2: Anybody's you know, perceived right wing philosophy or whatever they're
Speaker 2: duped into believing all about what Washington and you know,
Speaker 2: NATO want to do there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I just did it finish. Interview with Guido
Speaker 1: Preparata about Conjuring Hitler, his book about the Anglo American
Speaker 1: agenda to create Hitler in the nineteen twenties and thirties
Speaker 1: and how Hitler ultimately served the objective of the Anglo
Speaker 1: American the anticist powers.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I don't think there's any question.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, he even the funding of it goes in, whether
Speaker 1: it's the DAWs Plan, the Young Plan, and the money
Speaker 1: starts pouring in as soon as Hitler becomes power you know,
Speaker 1: it comes into the power, so you get the German
Speaker 1: recovery and all the industrialization that's aided in a bed
Speaker 1: not to sense I mentioned the fact the setting up
Speaker 1: of the European chess bird just in a perfect way
Speaker 1: that would create this war. You know, they were just
Speaker 1: set up to fail. And also the double dealing which
Speaker 1: you talk about. He read a lot of Carol quickly
Speaker 1: to write the book, so a lot of what he
Speaker 1: writes about in the book is what you covered in
Speaker 1: your analysis of Tragy Hope, about the dual policy, about
Speaker 1: Edward the eighth and all that scam and alger Hiss
Speaker 1: and these things, that crazy thing, and how Hitler was
Speaker 1: lured to thinking tricking to thinking that there was an
Speaker 1: element within the British Salvation there was more sympathetic to
Speaker 1: his Nazis, when that was just a ruse to get
Speaker 1: him to go to war and constentrate to negotiate with
Speaker 1: the British Empire.
Speaker 2: And so how do we tie it to Disney? Well,
Speaker 2: as I mentioned, actually there's a there's a clear tie
Speaker 2: from Brazil. It would go directly from Braziinski to Disney.
Speaker 2: How well, if you think about between two ages, the
Speaker 2: whole book is about the model of what kind of
Speaker 2: new world order Brazinski sees coming and what is the technocracy. Well,
Speaker 2: it's basically that older philosophy of you know, a kind
Speaker 2: of socialistic utopianism that foresaw technology being the salvation of humankind.
Speaker 2: So you can you can connect this to the Fabian
Speaker 2: socialists and these characters. You can tie it to Russian
Speaker 2: cosmist thinkers and science fic writers and futurists, Birdiev and
Speaker 2: these kind of characters, and what you get is the inevitable,
Speaker 2: predetermined juggernaut of technology leading man, you know, to the
Speaker 2: stars and all this kind of propaganda colony and it
Speaker 2: kind of died out. But then I think what happened
Speaker 2: is that the I think the hux Les and the
Speaker 2: families of the royal society types, I think they were
Speaker 2: instrumental in really reviving it. And that's the milieu that
Speaker 2: you get with Brazenski, who I think you could you
Speaker 2: could tie very very closely to to something like brave
Speaker 2: New World. That's really what Brazinski's outlining is a Brave
Speaker 2: New World type of approach. I mean he may not
Speaker 2: mention everything like cloning, but I mean he's basically saying
Speaker 2: the same thing. So how do we get to Disney. Well,
Speaker 2: what Brazinski sees is a completely controlled managerial society, and
Speaker 2: that's what the the Green Agenda, the un you know
Speaker 2: COP twenty two or twenty twenty, whatever it is that
Speaker 2: the plant have for for reorganized communities, megalopolis, all of
Speaker 2: these kinds of things that you hear conspiracy theorists talked about.
Speaker 2: That is what Disney was implementing as part of the
Speaker 2: conditioning process known as EPCOT. So EPCOT Center is actually
Speaker 2: the Community of Tomorrow. That was its original inception idea,
Speaker 2: and the idea was that, well, the future is coming,
Speaker 2: It's all going to be this tech utopia. It's this
Speaker 2: you know, this utopian futurism that we see in these
Speaker 2: different philosophers. And so we can project that cities will
Speaker 2: no longer be organized the way that city planning was
Speaker 2: done for you know, during during I guess the periods
Speaker 2: of industrialism and capitalism. You're going to have a completely
Speaker 2: controlled basically the AI super grit a smart city model,
Speaker 2: and this will be intimately tied into all of the
Speaker 2: green regulations. And so this is what Katherine Sofis has
Speaker 2: talked about many times. Gentrification is a big part of this.
Speaker 2: This is one part of the Even though the you know,
Speaker 2: individual entrepreneurs may not know that their gentrification is tied
Speaker 2: to Agenda twenty one, what it does is that it
Speaker 2: rezones areas. Now, you've talked about zoning areas and how
Speaker 2: that's been used to destroy ethnic communities and you know,
Speaker 2: Catholic cultures and so forth. That was all zoning laws
Speaker 2: as models for what we're going to see in the future.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and progressivism, democracy, integration, these things.
Speaker 2: You know, Yes, Now, what they're also doing that not
Speaker 2: many people have talked about. I think I heard Alan
Speaker 2: want to talk about this, but I've looked it up.
Speaker 2: But it's true. They they will try to buy off
Speaker 2: mayors in local communities.
Speaker 1: I think that's been done already just to a part
Speaker 1: of home home security grants. But I think that is right.
Speaker 2: Well, that's interesting. I wasn't thinking about that, but I
Speaker 2: was thinking in terms of un rezoning and refurbishing, and
Speaker 2: I've seen that happen in local cities near where I live.
Speaker 2: I think I mentioned that one of the talks was
Speaker 2: I can go not very far from where I am
Speaker 2: and there's a city that's not huge, maybe sixty eighty
Speaker 2: thousand population, and the whole downtown was basically refurbished. They
Speaker 2: built this giant arts center and so forth and so on,
Speaker 2: and it was all done because the UN basically declared
Speaker 2: this some kind of Harichid zone or something, and so
Speaker 2: there's some kind of program to buy mayors off. And
Speaker 2: Rosa Cory's book talks about this, which I read her
Speaker 2: book too. She talks about them trying to, you know,
Speaker 2: get local mayors involved.
Speaker 3: In this stuff. So it's been going on for a
Speaker 3: long time.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's done. It's basically it's uh, it's done.
Speaker 1: It's a peers local initiative. It's the something a local initiative,
Speaker 1: the local the l local something initiatives, local city initiatives.
Speaker 1: Really it's all century planned, but it's implemented to the
Speaker 1: town council's mayors. Jitter twenty one has been that way
Speaker 1: to the president, and also governs have signed executive orders
Speaker 1: implementing these things. Yeah, you're right, exactly exactly. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: uh Ickley, the international uh International Commission of Local or
Speaker 1: International something of Local Initiative thinks ity is the acronym.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: This is also connected to these kind of secret planned
Speaker 2: communities that are going up that not many people know
Speaker 2: about where. And I have the opinion. I haven't been
Speaker 2: I've tried down some proof of this, but I kind
Speaker 2: of think Sandy Hook was one of these where the
Speaker 2: un was kind of trying to make these make it
Speaker 2: a planned community where there would be no guns in
Speaker 2: the future.
Speaker 3: Basically, I had.
Speaker 1: A sibling who we just got together for the Fourth
Speaker 1: of July in Ohio with some relatives. He came down
Speaker 1: from New York area and he drove through San diegoata
Speaker 1: curiosity on his way down to Ohio, and he says,
Speaker 1: it looks like one of those fake Western towns, yeah,
Speaker 1: or attempting village type things.
Speaker 2: Yes. Now they're building these cities and fake communities and
Speaker 2: then later populating them. Some of them have gone up
Speaker 2: around Nashville. And what happens is it looks really nice
Speaker 2: and everything looks really tidy. But what you figure out
Speaker 2: is that the homeowners associations in these places have all
Speaker 2: these very bizarre, extreme weird rules and that I believe,
Speaker 2: like I don't have documented proof of it, but I
Speaker 2: can just assume that this is part of that that
Speaker 2: big plan. Uh. And yes, so they're creating these kind
Speaker 2: of new Stepford Wife type communities. And you say that's crazy. Well, actually,
Speaker 2: if you look at Disney's connection to Celebration Florida, that's
Speaker 2: a whole city that Disney created and it's actually the
Speaker 2: model for Stepford Wives type stuff. Are you very familiar
Speaker 2: with this?
Speaker 1: I'm familiar with the CIA through Paul Halliwell.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 1: Uh not Wisner. It was the other guy, you know,
Speaker 1: the guy Oss Guy.
Speaker 3: Donovan.
Speaker 1: Donovan were key figures in allowing Disney to build Disney
Speaker 1: World in Florida. They they created two fake towns to
Speaker 1: get around the environmental tax laws, local tax laws to
Speaker 1: enable them to bite land On.
Speaker 2: So Disney, you're right, Disney is actually its own city state. Yeah.
Speaker 1: This is Paul Hellywell, Helliwell, the guy who set up
Speaker 1: Newgahan Bank and all the drugs coming out of the
Speaker 1: Endo of China and also the Caribbean work with Mari Lansky.
Speaker 1: You set up Paradise, and you know Resorts International. He's
Speaker 1: got Mary Carter pay Company, which became Resorts International. It's
Speaker 1: now Donald Trumpet, you know. But they set up this
Speaker 1: false these two false cities to enable Disney Corporation to
Speaker 1: buy the land on the cheap. This is all these
Speaker 1: are all CIA guys helping Christ's SRI also consulted with Disney
Speaker 1: Land out and didn't know that right out in the
Speaker 1: West the same year the mk Ultra studied.
Speaker 2: By the way, yes, that's right right now. There's another
Speaker 2: thing though, that later on after Disney it was already there.
Speaker 2: They actually bought land and built a town. And I'm
Speaker 2: not kidding. This is where they filmed Truman Show. So
Speaker 2: when you watched Truman Show with Jim Carrey, which is
Speaker 2: about a fake town, yeah, I think it's surveiled. It's
Speaker 2: literally filmed in Celebration of Florida, which is a literally
Speaker 2: Disney created town. And I was reading reviews of people
Speaker 2: that had gone there, just kind of random internet reviews
Speaker 2: that didn't have anything to do his conspiracy theories. Three
Speaker 2: the views they're like, man, have you ever read Stepford
Speaker 2: Wives or watch that movie?
Speaker 3: That's what this town is like.
Speaker 2: So what I'm getting at is that Celebration of Florida
Speaker 2: is probably one of the early models of the planned
Speaker 2: community cities that the Agenda twenty one model is putting
Speaker 2: into practice, just like you know EPCOT is the community
Speaker 2: of the future.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you've mentioned the target cities as sort of
Speaker 1: as micro living.
Speaker 3: They're all connected.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's Chris. They're all smart like like Disney
Speaker 1: Disney World.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Disney World has for a long time. You know,
Speaker 2: the Kentagon was who installed the biometrics. That's stream News
Speaker 2: Semens Corporation, which has been involved in all kinds of
Speaker 2: the skulldugery German corporation, they were who installed the technology
Speaker 2: at I've caught and they often premiere a lot of
Speaker 2: new new advanced tech there for tech shows, all kinds
Speaker 2: of examples of stuff like that. But but yeah, I'm
Speaker 2: convinced that the Disney has been a long time uh
Speaker 2: you know Pentagon operation for sure.
Speaker 1: And this is all part of you talked about how
Speaker 1: the Illuminati effect full spectrum dominance. It's through education, entertainment,
Speaker 1: what's what's traffic is news, it's it's perception management. And
Speaker 1: Disney itself is a huge example. Is great. Well, Disney
Speaker 1: itself is as a corporation, it is making megalithic corporation
Speaker 1: which boasts uh creating uh, the imagination for children, they
Speaker 1: create the not to mention the fact that they play
Speaker 1: a big role in sexualizing the youth.
Speaker 2: You can also find numerous mainstream news stories of uh
Speaker 2: sex rings and sex trafficking from Disney employees.
Speaker 1: And there's tunnels under the city.
Speaker 2: Of course, right now everyone has whispered about that, but
Speaker 2: that's actually true.
Speaker 3: You can watch.
Speaker 2: The there's YouTube videos that actually invest their their old
Speaker 2: Disney documentaries that talk about it. Now. Now, the story
Speaker 2: is that Walt was just kind of a weirdo and
Speaker 2: he liked to He would he would just go from
Speaker 2: one end to the other and pop up, you know,
Speaker 2: he would pop up and check in on everybody, make sure.
Speaker 2: But I mean, who knows what was really going on.
Speaker 2: He seemed he seemed to be a very odd character,
Speaker 2: and he was. You know, Disney was was involved in
Speaker 2: filming prop again all the way back into World War two.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the Donald Duck had him do anything on
Speaker 1: taxes for the Treasury Department.
Speaker 2: Of the Ward.
Speaker 1: Get people adjusted to withholding and paying your taxes without
Speaker 1: protesting because there's a war to fight. They did all
Speaker 1: the animation I think for the why films these things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's this mythology that Disney was not to any
Speaker 2: aided Jews or whatever, But actually ben I Breath gave
Speaker 2: Walt Disney Man of the Year award a long time. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I believe that story, but I think
Speaker 2: that it was basically just high level uh, you know,
Speaker 2: Pentagon type work. Uh. And Disney, you know, reportedly had
Speaker 2: access to Laurel Canyon Studios as well, which you know,
Speaker 2: we don't know exactly what all was being filmed there,
Speaker 2: but there there is a lot of interesting Disney space
Speaker 2: age stuff. Back in the you know, sixties and seventies,
Speaker 2: Disney was very instrumental in promoting the did the the
Speaker 2: NASA stuff. And I don't think it's accidental that NASA
Speaker 2: and Disney are both in Florida, mm hmm, very prominently
Speaker 2: and a gigantic Air Force base basically the whole you.
Speaker 1: Know, there's Space Mountain right right in Disney.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, but there's a gianta Air Force base. I
Speaker 2: drove past it when I was down there too, two
Speaker 2: summers ago.
Speaker 3: It's on the.
Speaker 2: Not the it's on the Atlantic side. It's near uh,
Speaker 2: it's near NASA. I forget that. I forget what it is.
Speaker 2: I can't remember the name of all these bases, but
Speaker 2: maybe Aber Natural or something. But there's Yeah, there's all
Speaker 2: kinds of just you know, gigantic h you know, Pentagon
Speaker 2: military type stuff done there.
Speaker 3: And I don't think that's accidental. I think this is
Speaker 3: all you know, as you pointed.
Speaker 2: Out there with the CIA.
Speaker 3: Helping to found Disney through these fake cities.
Speaker 1: Well that just kind of makes the connection between you know,
Speaker 1: a you know, the intelligencies and entertainment it uh, movies
Speaker 1: and these things.
Speaker 2: Uh. Well it was Gregory Bates and that said that
Speaker 2: the key to controlling man's capturing his imagination something to
Speaker 2: that effect.
Speaker 3: I believe that's a Gregory Bates in quote.
Speaker 1: And again, the SA is more interested in anthropology and
Speaker 1: culture and these things, aren't, you know, Cloak and Dagerr stuff.
Speaker 1: We just kind of recover they're really interesting, which is
Speaker 1: culture creation. But you get that with you know, Chris
Speaker 1: John Adams, don anything about the cooking shows Chris, Tom
Speaker 1: Seconder has done.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 1: Tom second talked a lot about just Hollywood and your
Speaker 1: book Esoteric Hollywood is a big section on the CIA's
Speaker 1: involvement in Hollywood, and that's just that's overt there's a
Speaker 1: more esotery, I think, and that's the problem with all
Speaker 1: these things is a lot, because if you're trying to
Speaker 1: understand how the world operates, you just can't be fixated
Speaker 1: on what's on the obvious the exoteric. It's the esoteric,
Speaker 1: and you have to sort of engage in some level
Speaker 1: of inference or ex or you know, because what is
Speaker 1: the actual effect of all these things? You know, not
Speaker 1: can find a memo that says Cia orders Disney to
Speaker 1: put at this film. You know, so we turned girls
Speaker 1: into whoores. You know, it's not that direct, but nevertheless
Speaker 1: it's happening, and we're kind of seeing this alchemical reverse
Speaker 1: alchemy going on throughout society. Just go walk walk into
Speaker 1: a shopping mall these days and look at the people.
Speaker 2: I you know, I spent a lot of time into
Speaker 2: researching this stuff, and you learn new things every day.
Speaker 2: For example, I just learned this last week. I had
Speaker 2: no idea John C. Lily of MK ultra fame doctor Lilly, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, known for the flipper stuff like giving LSD
Speaker 2: to the dolphins. I had no idea that John C.
Speaker 2: Lily has a whole book called Programming and Meta Programming
Speaker 2: where he literally talks about dosing kids with LSD and
Speaker 2: that you can tap into their subconscious and literally give
Speaker 2: them a program script. I had never heard it. Did
Speaker 2: you know he had the book that literally says that.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not surprised by it, though, how is this
Speaker 1: guy not he should be hauled in for child abuse?
Speaker 3: But then you think, well, Alfred Kinsey can do the
Speaker 3: same studies.
Speaker 1: So now you get on the cover of time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, a good point.
Speaker 2: Yet, now do I know for certain that there's a
Speaker 2: sex kitten program. I don't know that for certain, but
Speaker 2: I know there's Alfred Kinsey research, and I know that
Speaker 2: there's a John C. Lilly book on dosing kids with
Speaker 2: l LSD and how to program them. And you put
Speaker 2: two and two together, I could see how there could
Speaker 2: be such a thing. So I wouldn't be surprised if
Speaker 2: it didn't go that deep. But but yeah, I mean there's,
Speaker 2: like you said, you kind of have to infer on
Speaker 2: a metal level, the possibility of you know, you could
Speaker 2: you could combine the kind of approach that Lily takes
Speaker 2: with Kinz or something like that, and you could easily
Speaker 2: see how you know, the CIA probably did do some
Speaker 2: kind of study on how to create a good girl
Speaker 2: who turns into a whoror through mind control who knows.
Speaker 1: And then yeah, they just apply to entertainment, which you
Speaker 1: see planted out almost universal with these Disney girls that
Speaker 1: come out of the Disney stables.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, it's.
Speaker 1: What you know, do you think it's all just a
Speaker 1: coincidence that's having It's some sort of programming that's going
Speaker 1: on there, and.
Speaker 2: It really is to wreck wreck the kids. That's what's
Speaker 2: so praised about it.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean I've talked about a couple of times,
Speaker 1: think with you both other guests, is that there is
Speaker 1: there you know, the US Public Health Service, working with
Speaker 1: the Sage Racial Sage Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and used
Speaker 1: Department of Health and these things, talked about how promoting
Speaker 1: the AIDS scared, Yeah, would be utilized to implement their
Speaker 1: h A x D program, a very graphic sex ed
Speaker 1: program that otherwise parents would would oppose, but the AID
Speaker 1: scare uh enable them to implement the program for the
Speaker 1: for the very purposes of changing the students' more's and
Speaker 1: attitudes and values towards sex. He corrupting them, sexualizing the youth. Right,
Speaker 1: So that's that's a that's just to the education system. Now, obviously,
Speaker 1: through the entertainment systems can be a little different, but
Speaker 1: these are the same people that run the entertainment system.
Speaker 1: They can implement it differently, and you can see it
Speaker 1: being implemented through Disney, or through the re or through
Speaker 1: music itself. I mean, that's.
Speaker 2: But but it's This is a great point that John
Speaker 2: and Chris have made too, is that you know, it's
Speaker 2: not just TV, uh, it's also theme parks and museums
Speaker 2: play a big role in indoctrination. And you know, we
Speaker 2: don't tend to think of it that way. We tend
Speaker 2: to think of it like, oh, there's a natural history
Speaker 2: history museum over there, and or you can in your
Speaker 2: leisure time and go visit Disneyland over there. But actually
Speaker 2: that both of these will be teaching a unified approach.
Speaker 3: A great example, I remember going.
Speaker 2: When I went to go here that that Tarplely debate
Speaker 2: back in twenty ten or eleven in DC, and I'd
Speaker 2: never been to the Aerospace Museum.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: And when you go in there, you walk in and you.
Speaker 2: See that dinky Apollo stuff.
Speaker 3: And I'm not kidding.
Speaker 2: I've told the story many times, but most of the
Speaker 2: crowd was just sitting there, like I don't think that
Speaker 2: really went to the moon. Look at that thing. That
Speaker 2: thing looks dinky. That's what the crowd was saying. But
Speaker 2: you know, I guess that's the power Propaganda's yes.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: So then when you go upstairs, there's this giant I'm
Speaker 2: not kidding, it's a giant Lucifer cloven hoofed if I
Speaker 2: remember mural, and it says I think it says Apollo,
Speaker 2: and it's like, you know, it's supposed to be like
Speaker 2: the god Apollo. Or you walk in through this exhibit
Speaker 2: and it's it's all this space stuff. And so what
Speaker 2: I'm getting at is just that you can't come away
Speaker 2: with away from that without thinking, you know, as well
Speaker 2: as the rest of d C. You know, like Chris
Speaker 2: always points out, is that this is like one giant
Speaker 2: pedagogical tour that I'm on mm.
Speaker 1: Hm and yeah, and the tourists that come there from
Speaker 1: the benighted Midwest. You know, well, I've seen this on TV.
Speaker 2: You've come to the Land of the Gods with the
Speaker 2: giant apotheosized, you know, George Washington up there, and the
Speaker 2: giant Abraham Lincoln that you pointed out, what is he
Speaker 2: like fifty feet? Yeah, these are the gods or something.
Speaker 1: This is these in his Greek temple and wow, yeah exactly.
Speaker 1: And then you think, if you, if you're like a
Speaker 1: sensible republic, this is how you want to view your politicians.
Speaker 1: I mean, does any serious historian ever present Lincoln in that? Will? Some?
Speaker 1: Do some? Do you know, Doris con scared winning your
Speaker 1: typical typical court historians? But really, come on, I mean
Speaker 1: it's an insult everyone's intelligence. This isn't reality. So why
Speaker 1: would you want to partake your kids to these museums
Speaker 1: and present this as real as as a good understanding
Speaker 1: of history really occurred. O oppose the as opposed that
Speaker 1: the propaganda.
Speaker 2: You know. Oh, here's another interesting point I would mention too,
Speaker 2: to connect the LSD. That is something I've just learned.
Speaker 2: Back even in the fifties, a lot of Hollywood and uh,
Speaker 2: Disney artists, they were all tripping out. They were all
Speaker 2: using acid because it was pretty new, h uh. And
Speaker 2: a lot of the Disney artists were doing it. And
Speaker 2: there's that there's even that co production between Salvador Dali
Speaker 2: and Disney. Have you ever seen that cartoon? Uh?
Speaker 1: I think I know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3: It's not Fantasia, it's something else.
Speaker 2: I forget what it's called, but it's it's kind of
Speaker 2: an underground, uh as, a cult following type thing because
Speaker 2: it's so weird, you know, given Salvador Dolly's yeah influence.
Speaker 2: And then but if I recall that was that was
Speaker 2: both Walt and Dolly were you know, probably tripping out
Speaker 2: doing that. Other Disney artists were using LSD and a
Speaker 2: lot of the Hollywood. In fact, there was a story
Speaker 2: I saw that Carry Grant did acid like some outrageous number,
Speaker 2: like a thousand times something crazy. He was just constantly
Speaker 2: doing acid. And you wouldn't you think about that being sixties?
Speaker 3: Right? The Beatles introduced that, Oh you know LSD. That's
Speaker 3: Tim Larry.
Speaker 2: Actually there was a lot of Hollywood people doing acid
Speaker 2: back in the fifties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was because, yeah, the there was with George
Speaker 1: Hunter White, Operation Midnight Climax and the safe houses up
Speaker 1: there at San Francisco, and it was the sixties, the
Speaker 1: well the mas dos had started with the rock and
Speaker 1: roll phase and these dynasy and rock festivals, right Owsley
Speaker 1: Elsie Stanley or something.
Speaker 2: Correct, right, you know. But but the reason I mentioned
Speaker 2: that is just that that's another connection that you can
Speaker 2: make between mk ulture because LSD was a product of
Speaker 2: mc ultra for the most part, and it might even
Speaker 2: be the case that it was being given to because
Speaker 2: it was new. It was like a you know, elite thing.
Speaker 2: Here's this new drug. Oh, the Huxleys have done this.
Speaker 2: You know, they've been talking about it over in England
Speaker 2: for a long time. You know. So there were the
Speaker 2: Jets that was doing it in the fifties, you know,
Speaker 2: whether by design or not, I'm not sure. Probably it's probably.
Speaker 3: Probably Tavistock.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that had already kind of pioneered that.
Speaker 1: Did you met that? The was that new Disney program,
Speaker 1: uh where you get you go into Disney and they
Speaker 1: track everything you buy where you go, and you've embrace
Speaker 1: that identifies you. So the characters can can know your kid's.
Speaker 2: Name, whoa I have not, But that doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1: So Goofy comes, you know, is it on a first
Speaker 1: name basis with your kid? Well, and and all this
Speaker 1: is see he goes back. You know, this whole day
Speaker 1: of you know, the Disney being the model for the
Speaker 1: controlled you know system for.
Speaker 2: The yes and the last time that I went, uh
Speaker 2: was I did it? Just to analyze the whole the
Speaker 2: whole thing. And when you when you write EPCOT, if
Speaker 2: you don't recall or if you if you haven't done it,
Speaker 2: you go through the phases of the history of man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, they have the things.
Speaker 2: Well, it ends in the matrix the end of EPCOT. Now,
Speaker 2: is you entering into the matrix.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they have the dinosaurs and the monks working there
Speaker 1: and exactly yeah.
Speaker 2: And then right before, right before the matrix, is this
Speaker 2: little nerd tinkering in his garage. It's Bill Gates and
Speaker 2: he's built he's building the computer. And then and then
Speaker 2: the next space says you entering the matrix.
Speaker 1: Man, So I mean you uh again, you might have
Speaker 1: about Hollywood, and of course Hollywood's rolling all this, uh
Speaker 1: Disney obviously he's a big part of Hollywood now too
Speaker 1: because of the movies they control. How many studios are
Speaker 1: they own now, I'm.
Speaker 2: Not sure, but I mean, you know they own Star
Speaker 2: Wars and Marble, So.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. And of course the whole superhero
Speaker 1: beam might think is a huge part of a you
Speaker 1: know this agenda, Yes, absolutely, you know, you can, you
Speaker 1: can I think ultimate. I think it's also demoralizing because
Speaker 1: it makes people think the only way you can make
Speaker 1: a difference is if you're a superhero.
Speaker 2: You know, that's interesting. I hadn't thought about that.
Speaker 1: You know, It's like, oh, well, I can't do anything.
Speaker 1: I you know, I can't like one of Wonder Woman,
Speaker 1: charge a German machine guns and fight them off with
Speaker 1: my bracelets. So I have to wait for superhero to
Speaker 1: come by.
Speaker 2: I think, I think this whole super hero that's an
Speaker 2: interesting point.
Speaker 3: I haven't thought about that.
Speaker 2: But I also think you could argue that you're seeing this,
Speaker 2: you know, in the last ten years, this huge rise
Speaker 2: in cosplay, people adopting LARPing live action role Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that I've talked about that, John, John and Chris have
Speaker 2: talked about that. And what this is doing is really
Speaker 2: on a mass gale like we've never seen before. People
Speaker 2: are adopting the synthetic life that they live on the side. No,
Speaker 2: I think what's going to happen. As I said in
Speaker 2: a few a few interviews and shows that if you
Speaker 2: watch The New West World, Michael Crichton was actually predicting
Speaker 2: that in the future you would have have entire parks
Speaker 2: would become like that, like what you're talking about with
Speaker 2: Goofy coming up and knowing your kid, it's even gonna
Speaker 2: go beyond that. There's gonna be you know, who knows
Speaker 2: what there's I mean, there's gonna be there's probably gonna
Speaker 2: be AI bots and sex bots at parks that will
Speaker 2: be whatever you can think of.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I think the sex angle is probably
Speaker 1: the convenience and sex. That's how they get you.
Speaker 2: They're going to combine it though, with these kinds of
Speaker 2: live action stories like are you familiar with the Old
Speaker 2: West World?
Speaker 1: You know with Yeah, with Bill Brenner, Yeah, and uh,
Speaker 1: what's his name from Goodbye Columbus? Richard Benjamin and the
Speaker 1: guy from Who's the other guy?
Speaker 2: I can't remember?
Speaker 1: He was in the Marcus Well b MD. And he
Speaker 1: was also in Capricorn One by the way.
Speaker 3: Oh wow, yeah, you.
Speaker 1: Know James James Brolin. James Brolin okay, yeah, so yeah,
Speaker 1: that was on my as a kid, is one of
Speaker 1: my favorite movies.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, Okay, Yeah. I think that's what we're We're
Speaker 2: literally going to see stuff like that develop in the future.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not just accidental that they're Yeah, the
Speaker 2: Disney's created these these entire cities and planned communities. I
Speaker 2: think it's it's they're gonna they're going to integrate the
Speaker 2: virtual worlds with our world and it's all gonna be
Speaker 2: just for control. And I think people are gonna sign
Speaker 2: on to this.
Speaker 1: Well, they will because it's so easy. I mean, think
Speaker 1: about pornography and its weaponizations used as a political weapon
Speaker 1: to enslave you because it cites the passions. And once
Speaker 1: you become a slave your passions, uh, you have what's it?
Speaker 1: You know, as many uh man, as many masters as
Speaker 1: he has vices, as Saint Augustine said, right, and this
Speaker 1: was Michael Jennes I made this point in his book
Speaker 1: Lilibitta da Monandi, is that this is a foreign political
Speaker 1: control because once you lose your passions, you lose your
Speaker 1: your critical faculties, and you can longer govern yourself and
Speaker 1: your slave to your passions and those who satisfy the
Speaker 1: passions or desires or appetites that can control you. Now,
Speaker 1: pornography itself wasn't really a faction to the development of
Speaker 1: modern photography, particularly film, yes, Ickelodeon.
Speaker 2: By the way, I would like to mention that neither
Speaker 2: Michael Hoffman or E. Michael Jones are very consistent in
Speaker 2: there fact that both Augustin and Aquinas believe that you
Speaker 2: should have whorehouses, that they should be sanctioned by the state, as.
Speaker 1: Far as like a pressure valve.
Speaker 2: Yep, but I don't hear. I didn't believe that when
Speaker 2: I first read that, or but but they did say that.
Speaker 3: So interesting.
Speaker 1: But the problem with that is, well, okay again, think
Speaker 1: about it from the standpoint of the common guy around
Speaker 1: seeing the first nickelodeon and you could pop in a
Speaker 1: nickel and watch a girl undress continuing front of you.
Speaker 1: What a shock that is, uh, to your senses and
Speaker 1: to your you know, your attitude, your view about things
Speaker 1: with pornography, the effect of pornography itself on society, what
Speaker 1: it's done. Now, if you raise a generation on pornography
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, highly sexualized environment entertainment, you're warping
Speaker 1: that person's development uh as a as a maturity being,
Speaker 1: particularly the males. But it accounts for both male and
Speaker 1: female affects them differently.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 1: Now you have a highly sexualized culture their uh you know,
Speaker 1: their neck deep in pornography. They never develop a normal
Speaker 1: They can never develop a normal relationship with the opposite
Speaker 1: sex or have real realististic expectations they have this sort
Speaker 1: of this playboy you know, glossy air brush reality of sex.
Speaker 1: This isn't real in no other way. They have to
Speaker 1: go through the the effort of having a relationship with
Speaker 1: a real female, which requires work.
Speaker 2: Their overall points.
Speaker 1: Yeah, imagine the world of highly sophisticated sex spots.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying is yeah, that's kind of yeah.
Speaker 2: And I was actually saying some articles this week about uh,
Speaker 2: there are already in supposedly these maybe fake stories, but
Speaker 2: I would be surprised. In Japan there's already guys marrying
Speaker 2: their sexpot.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And but I mean, just think if you could
Speaker 1: enter into a virtual reality and have before you a
Speaker 1: girl that looks like Raquel Welch in her prime, and
Speaker 1: she's always agreeing with you, and she's doing whatever she
Speaker 1: wants at any time. You don't have to you know,
Speaker 1: she doesn't she never gets pregnant.
Speaker 2: Well, they'll probably say, you know, you can come live
Speaker 2: in West World, you know, down here in Florida if
Speaker 2: you sign on to be sterilized.
Speaker 1: Long as it's the contract right, and people will obviously
Speaker 1: with the uh you'll see that with the growth of
Speaker 1: a sectomies and also the use of the birth control pill.
Speaker 2: Come live your cause, play dream and you know, cause
Speaker 2: play world Ysney or you can you.
Speaker 1: Know, and of course you know signing under that basically
Speaker 1: you're you're really are, You're you're just getting on board
Speaker 1: the the road to uh to the death camps one
Speaker 1: way or another.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just to ensure that you don't go into the future.
Speaker 1: But you can again this this is done through entertainment.
Speaker 1: This is done through the media, the movies, these things.
Speaker 1: People's perception of reality is through the movies. That's why
Speaker 1: Hollywood is so important. That's what you when your book
Speaker 1: Esoteric Hollywood is so important because people's understanding of these
Speaker 1: things really is increasingly through this. Uh, well, not so
Speaker 1: much through the movies. Now. I think you said of
Speaker 1: listening to your interview on Red Ice when you're talking
Speaker 1: about your book Esoteric Hollywood, talking about it's gonna change,
Speaker 1: just like how you know, the movies changed, radio didn't
Speaker 1: get rid of it changed it, and TV changed the movies,
Speaker 1: and now the internet's changing virtuality gaming, this thing is
Speaker 1: changing the movies. Have movies now look more like video games.
Speaker 1: But this interactive thing is particularly interesting because that's going
Speaker 1: to change the whole nature of entertainment, and not to
Speaker 1: change nature entertainment. It's the gamification of reality.
Speaker 2: What we're saying, Yeah, this is all really I think
Speaker 2: it's going to be handed over to the technocrats and
Speaker 2: the facebooks and the Googles. You know, they're going to
Speaker 2: have a much greater role in what's going to happen
Speaker 2: with entertainment. We're actually already seeing the inklings of that
Speaker 2: with not just Netflix and streaming sites Amazon Prime, but
Speaker 2: actually with YouTube is beginning to try to adopt this model.
Speaker 2: This is part of the whole ad apocalypse debacle of
Speaker 2: the last several months that everybody who's had a YouTube
Speaker 2: channel has experienced. And the prevailing theory is that what
Speaker 2: YouTube is doing is instituting well, they're allowing all kinds
Speaker 2: of content that people are going to find objectionable so
Speaker 2: that people will call for hm, call for the censorship.
Speaker 2: And then what that will do is allow YouTube to
Speaker 2: to basically censor anything relevant or any alternative media, any
Speaker 2: of the you know, the organic media that everyone is
Speaker 2: actually drawn to. Then the censorship is going to be
Speaker 2: the transition into YouTube becoming a streaming service just like Netflix.
Speaker 2: That's what's going to happen. They're already starting it. So
Speaker 2: that's not going to be good for those of us,
Speaker 2: you know, with YouTube channels that make money off of
Speaker 2: it and stuff like that. But you know what, what
Speaker 2: did we expect. It's not like we expected the the
Speaker 2: establishment to continue, you know, allowing truth channels to make
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of money every month.
Speaker 3: They're not gonna allow that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they shut it down through the demonetizing you and.
Speaker 2: Through supposed censorship because you're never told what terms they're
Speaker 2: flagging you for.
Speaker 3: You have no idea.
Speaker 2: You don't know if it's because you said, you know,
Speaker 2: in a you could quote a news article and your
Speaker 2: your channel gets demonetized. Yeah, and eventually it'll be they'll
Speaker 2: they'll take down the videos. They'll say that your video
Speaker 2: contains you know, inappropriate content, which will be as a
Speaker 2: result of Google and YouTube allowing inappropriate content on purpose
Speaker 2: so that they could have the reason to censor people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they'll use the copyright excuse, an intellectual profit excuse.
Speaker 1: They've done as internationally to break down national borders, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they've done that, same with they've done with banking, you know.
Speaker 1: And cast onsin Fits made a point a while back
Speaker 1: regarding regulation, how we all know that the regulations don't
Speaker 1: apply to the elite, but they're there too, more or
Speaker 1: less to harvest the text to bleed and just to
Speaker 1: frustrate those at the mid level. And uh again that's
Speaker 1: one way to stifle competition. Was another way again that
Speaker 1: everything can be harvested and taken away eventually the wealth.
Speaker 1: You can't just take it all at once, you take
Speaker 1: away gradually. Common Core again, this is part of the
Speaker 1: education approach. Is common core itself. Just through the interview
Speaker 1: a while back regarding common Core with doctor Farrell, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I heard it, yeah about this all part of of
Speaker 1: data collection, all part of technocracy, because everything is all
Speaker 1: the information is being your your electronic testing data service.
Speaker 1: Electronic data Testing Data Service has a direct tie to
Speaker 1: m care Alter through the Human Ecology Fund, and it.
Speaker 2: Was that's how they would they would be able to
Speaker 2: profile and figure out, you know, who might be useful
Speaker 2: in certain things that you know, we were talking about
Speaker 2: that in terms of Phoenix programs. Yeah, finding a psychopathic individuals.
Speaker 1: And of course with just with the improvement technology data collection,
Speaker 1: data analysis, and storage, uh, you know, all this becomes
Speaker 1: more effective. Yeah, Phoenix program. It was a testing program
Speaker 1: for the Department and for Homeland Security to prototypical program.
Speaker 1: You know, you create a civil war, you know, arena fear.
Speaker 1: Same thing that's done in the United States with terrorism,
Speaker 1: applied differently, of course, because Vietnam is different than North
Speaker 1: America and the situation is different. Castronson fits in the
Speaker 1: forward to the common Core book talks about Obamacare doing
Speaker 1: just It's basically it's way of sucking out the money
Speaker 1: out of the medical system from local areas because the
Speaker 1: medical staff people that the administrative element of medicine, the
Speaker 1: people that run that the doctor's offices. As medicine becomes
Speaker 1: more corporatized as individual practices are shut down, doctors go
Speaker 1: to work for mega corporations, and Obamacare is a big
Speaker 1: part of that, because it's becoming too onerous for individual
Speaker 1: doctors to run their own practice, so they go to
Speaker 1: work for megacorp exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I did finally get around to getting that Nancy Banks book,
Speaker 2: you know, which deals with the relationship ship to to history.
Speaker 1: Medicine, diamonds. Yeah, yeah, yes, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: And once you understand and what there we go once again.
Speaker 2: We're back to Arkansas and let's not forget by the way, Mina, Arkansas. Yes,
Speaker 2: and the selection the selection of Bill.
Speaker 1: Who some say is related to Winthrop Right.
Speaker 2: Well, if you if you walk down the Strip and
Speaker 2: Hot Springs, there's a very ridiculous looking cartoon, like a
Speaker 2: giant billboard. That's a cartoon drawing of Broklyn welcoming you.
Speaker 2: But he looks really I mean, it's a really badly
Speaker 2: drawn cartoon. It's it's it's kind of funny, but.
Speaker 1: It's like a put little cartoon type Bill Clinton.
Speaker 2: But isn't that telling for the you know, you have
Speaker 2: you have the big mobsters, you have the medium mobsters,
Speaker 2: and then you have the frontmen politicians.
Speaker 1: M h yeah, I was a well literally on we
Speaker 1: were talking about consumerism, and consumer is used to break
Speaker 1: down sort of culture, break down these firewalls that they
Speaker 1: exist in other countries and also locally and h I
Speaker 1: ran this quote here from the old All in the
Speaker 1: Family show Archie Bunker is they're commiserating with Edith about
Speaker 1: the Democrats that he's playing with the Democrats because this
Speaker 1: is the late seventies and Jimmy Carter's in office. Of course,
Speaker 1: you know, Archie Bunker was the Republican blue collar Republican
Speaker 1: mm hmmm, which is kind of funny because you know,
Speaker 1: up until the seventies, blue calls were associated with Democrats.
Speaker 1: But that's kind of what was going on in Poltant
Speaker 1: domestic politics at the time. The red light, the red
Speaker 1: left to or sorry, the right left paradigm being shifted
Speaker 1: around by the cultural people of the nineteen sixties. But
Speaker 1: he's just he's talking to eat and he goes, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going what's going on here at
Speaker 1: this time. It's during the supposed the energy crisis, of course,
Speaker 1: another crisis that was created non exist by builder book, right.
Speaker 1: So you know, for years they've been telling us to
Speaker 1: buy stuff. You know, they use energy, electric ovens, electric knives, stereos.
Speaker 1: Not to mention the cars. He goes, and after all
Speaker 1: the corporations make their billions, they change signals on us,
Speaker 1: you know, and after years of telling us we can't
Speaker 1: live without this stuff that we they tell us that
Speaker 1: we got to live without it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it isn't that interesting from consumerism and gluttony basically
Speaker 2: to us. Yeah, and austerity is that banker trick?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's that sort of the Club of Rome
Speaker 1: type thing, the environmental thing, which is why that's another
Speaker 1: way they convince people to give up their sovereignty, to
Speaker 1: accept a miseration, to be impoverished, you know, to live
Speaker 1: in megacities and.
Speaker 2: Yes, you need a coffin box apartment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And it's it's all trendy. It's very tony
Speaker 1: because it's you know, if you're twenty one years old
Speaker 1: and you can live in a foreigner squarel foot.
Speaker 2: Apartments and eat ram and noodles fake food.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and not think about the long term consequences because
Speaker 1: you're eating like that and you're not going to live
Speaker 1: past fifty anyway if you're loving you know, you know,
Speaker 1: so what's funny thing. But again, what's interesting by Prasinski
Speaker 1: was he's at this high level, he's talking about geostrategy,
Speaker 1: but it all but it all plays down. It all
Speaker 1: trickles down to media, the food we eat, the commercials
Speaker 1: we watch, the music we listen to.
Speaker 2: That's what's important about Brazenski is that, you know, I
Speaker 2: still run into people who get very offended by the
Speaker 2: things I talk about, or that they get mad or
Speaker 2: they you know, various reactions that I mean, most of
Speaker 2: the most people don't. Most people are to some degree
Speaker 2: kind of on board with you know, something's wrong out there,
Speaker 2: But every now and then I still run into two
Speaker 2: people who just can't deal with it, and sometimes actually,
Speaker 2: you know, intelligent people. It's not just goofballs. But the
Speaker 2: reason Brazenski is so crucial is that he is, you know,
Speaker 2: one of the few figures that pretty much touches on everything. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know in some way roughly, you know, he talks
Speaker 2: about manipulation of religion, manipulation through technology, k culture type stuff.
Speaker 2: He'll talk about, you know, false flag stuff. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's not going to outright say false flag, but he's
Speaker 2: going to talk about utilizing means of decailization. He really
Speaker 2: does in many ways and capsule late, he's really the
Speaker 2: the you know, if the wet dream of the conspiracy
Speaker 2: there is if you want the guy to go to
Speaker 2: as your proof, you can't find anyone better than Brazenski.
Speaker 1: Here's yeah. But here's a question for you though. And
Speaker 1: this is what I was talking to the Collins brothers
Speaker 1: about Brazinski because I interviewed him roughly at the same
Speaker 1: time that he passed away. So one of the other
Speaker 1: thoughts on Brazinski, and one of the things they mentioned was, well, uh,
Speaker 1: they kind of agreed with Michael Jones' analysis. Michael Jones
Speaker 1: said that the Russian the Soviet Union lasted as long
Speaker 1: as pretty much the life of one man, seventy five years,
Speaker 1: and so there's these it's sort of there's a it's
Speaker 1: sort of mortal, you know, as soon as the older
Speaker 1: generation passed away, it kind of faded away. And they
Speaker 1: said that Brazienski himself, the passing in Persiski might represent
Speaker 1: the same theme regarding the global elite. That's certain. What
Speaker 1: we're seeing now is is a reflection of the worldview
Speaker 1: of the David Rockefellers, the Kissingers, the Brazenski's, and they're
Speaker 1: passing may represent a changing of the guard, the changing
Speaker 1: and we might see some shift and policy, which is
Speaker 1: I trik it as sort of somewhat optimistic analysis of
Speaker 1: of Brazinski and the situation. That's an interesting observation. And
Speaker 1: second to that is who's taking their place? I don't
Speaker 1: see anyone there the same sort of depth or intellectual acumen, right.
Speaker 2: I think that came out when I was talking to
Speaker 2: Patrick about Brazinski, and I think that it passes to
Speaker 2: the tech the tech gurus, the Elon Musk's, the Peter Thiel's,
Speaker 2: the Schmidts at Google. I think the Regina Dugans of
Speaker 2: are put in Google. That's what I think Builderberg has
Speaker 2: signified the last few years was the focus on tech.
Speaker 2: So that's that's why I think is going to take
Speaker 2: the reins. Now. I would guess that means that they
Speaker 2: probably think that they can go ahead and transition into
Speaker 2: you know, AI running things, giant smart cities.
Speaker 1: So automated tyranny.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. The CEO of IBM, you know, she gives
Speaker 2: those lectures start, So I think that's where they're going
Speaker 2: to pass the reins to. Whether that will be successful,
Speaker 2: I guess really depends on, you know, what man chooses
Speaker 2: to do. But unfortunately, it looks like we're we're going
Speaker 2: into that. I think there is a reason to be
Speaker 2: optimistic though, because I think people are going to they're
Speaker 2: going to have reaction to this. They're going to start
Speaker 2: realizing that a lot of this isn't before they're good
Speaker 2: the the utopia that it promises, it doesn't deliver, just
Speaker 2: like just like Sovietism promised this kind of you know,
Speaker 2: cosmism and utopia, it doesn't deliver it. Yeah, So in
Speaker 2: that regard, I think there's hope. And also I think
Speaker 2: that if you have a if you believe in some
Speaker 2: sort of theological position, or if you have a worldview
Speaker 2: like that, then you believe that that man is more
Speaker 2: than just a plastic entity to be crafted through some
Speaker 2: sort of mechanized Darwinism. And I think that from H. G.
Speaker 2: Wells on, these characters have kind of had that view
Speaker 2: of plasticity of man, that you can mold man to
Speaker 2: to be whatever you want, which is to say that
Speaker 2: he doesn't have a soul or a psyche or an
Speaker 2: individual identity beyond biology and brain matter. But I think
Speaker 2: humans have I think humans are made the image of God.
Speaker 2: So I don't I don't think that we have to despair,
Speaker 2: and you know, think that that the technocrats will will
Speaker 2: win because technocracy ultimately is empty. It doesn't offer anything
Speaker 2: beyond some sort of immediate, an immediate form of making
Speaker 2: life easier. That's really what that's really all technology can
Speaker 2: do easier, and just just making things easier doesn't actually
Speaker 2: provide man with any kind of meaning or transcendent connection.
Speaker 2: And I think that humans are always going to desire,
Speaker 2: you know, metaphysics and a transcendent connection.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because obviously we observe through physical exertion we are healthier.
Speaker 1: So at some level easier becomes actually a detriment.
Speaker 2: Year that's a good point exactly.
Speaker 1: And we all know that hard, hard work creates characters,
Speaker 1: so we all know. So, uh, there's a point where
Speaker 1: obviously you don't want to, you know, make a fetish
Speaker 1: out of hard labor. And there's a point you know,
Speaker 1: but people, there is a sense of accomplishment we get,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, through exercise and get results through exercise,
Speaker 1: maintaining you're healthy that way. Same thing applied to the spiritual,
Speaker 1: and there's a connection between the body and the spirit.
Speaker 2: And no matter how many AI bots you bring to power,
Speaker 2: I mean, you're always going to have to need. I mean,
Speaker 2: you can build a bot to work on a bot,
Speaker 2: but who's going to work on that bot? I mean
Speaker 2: you're always going to need, don't. I don't know that
Speaker 2: they're ever going to achieve this kind of whatever utopia
Speaker 2: they have in mind.
Speaker 1: And there's no exhilaration feeling asking about out on the
Speaker 1: first date it saying yes.
Speaker 2: I don't think so, I think even if this happens,
Speaker 2: humans are eventually going to kind of be bored with
Speaker 2: it mm hmm, because it's it's not going to be
Speaker 2: able to offer, you know, what it promises. So anyway,
Speaker 2: that's I think that's all I've got tonight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's good, okay. Yeah, So that's the bit
Speaker 1: bersiskey technocracy and the slave grid that they're all trying
Speaker 1: to pose upon us. I want to thank you Jay
Speaker 1: for spending the time to talk with me.
Speaker 2: Thank you too.
Speaker 1: I'll let you it's Jay's analysis jasonalysis dot com. He's
Speaker 1: the author of Esoteric Hollywood Sex Calls and Symbols and Film.
Speaker 1: Go to his website and support his work by subscribing
Speaker 1: for ninety five a month sixty dollars eight year support
Speaker 1: his research, check out all his articles.
Speaker 2: And the book is still selling, so people can still
Speaker 2: order copies of the book and get one give to
Speaker 2: your friends and family.
Speaker 1: And are you still signing copies?
Speaker 2: I am, okay, the fact type I still mail them
Speaker 2: every week and I think I have almost ninety five
Speaker 2: star reviews.
Speaker 1: Now great, excellent. Yeah, it is a great book. And
Speaker 1: to understanding what we're talking about tonight, reading Esoteric Hollywood
Speaker 1: is a must because the entertainment, the films, the movies,
Speaker 1: these seems the creation of reality or the perception of
Speaker 1: reality is key to uh keeping anyone, you know, keeping
Speaker 1: control of this, you know, making everyone I guess a
Speaker 1: submit or acquiesce to these things.
Speaker 2: So okay, thank you, thank you for your great podcast,
Speaker 2: and I've learned a lot from your show.
Speaker 1: Thank you, al I'll bid you, uh farewell for now,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk again soon in the near future.